Benchmark Almanac

MCPMark

Kimi K3 94.5% leads since July 2026
GPT-5.2 57.5% leads since December 2025
Kimi K3 94.5% leads since July 2026
In use

Agent stress-tests realistic MCP tool use (GitHub, Notion, Postgres, browser). Graded by programmatic verification scripts.

Kimi K3 reports a 'Verified' revision.

Released
September 2025
Kind
Apps and MCP servers
Level
University
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Kimi K3 #24 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
July 2026
Last model added
July 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

MCP standardizes how LLMs interact with external systems, forming the foundation for general agents. However, existing MCP benchmarks remain narrow in scope: they focus on read-heavy tasks or tasks with limited interaction depth, and fail to capture the complexity and realism of real-world workflows. To address this gap, we propose MCPMark, a benchmark designed to evaluate MCP use in a more realistic and comprehensive manner. It consists of 127 high-quality tasks collaboratively created by domain experts and AI agents. Each task begins with a curated initial state and includes a programmatic script for automatic verification. These tasks demand richer and more diverse interactions with the environment, involving a broad range of create, read, update, and delete (CRUD) operations. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of cutting-edge LLMs using a minimal agent framework that operates in a tool-calling loop. Empirical results show that the best-performing model, gpt-5-medium, reaches only 52.56% pass@1 and 33.86% pass^4, while other widely regarded strong models, including claude-sonnet-4 and o3, fall below 30% pass@1 and 15% pass^4. On average, LLMs require 16.2 execution turns and 17.4 tool calls per task, significantly surpassing those in previous MCP benchmarks and highlighting the stress-testing nature of MCPMark.

Abstract of MCPMark: A Benchmark for Stress-Testing Realistic and Comprehensive MCP Use (arXiv:2509.24002, CC0)
10
Models scored in lab cards
10
Launch posts list it, from 4 labs
3
System cards report it, from 3 labs

Kimi K3 leads with 94.5% among models released by July 2026

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

GPT-5.2 leads with 57.5% across all independent runs

Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.

Kimi K3 leads with 94.5%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

The newest model with a score here came out in July 2026, and nobody has reported a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Kimi K3 94.5%
  2. 2 Kimi K2.7 Code 81.1%
  3. 3 Qwen3.7-Max 60.8%
  4. 4 Qwen3.7-Plus 58.7%
  5. 5 Kimi K2.6 55.9%
  6. 6 Seed2.0 Pro 54.7%
  7. 7 Qwen 3.6 Plus 48.2%
  8. 8 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 46.1%
  9. 9 DeepSeek-V3.2 38%
  10. 10 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 37%

Source: Labs’ model cards

Sources: Labs’ model cards and official MCPMark leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Kimi K3 94.5% Jul 2026 Lab model card
2 Kimi K2.7 Code 81.1% Jun 2026 Lab model card
3 Qwen3.7-Max 60.8% May 2026 Lab model card
4 Qwen3.7-Plus 58.7% Jun 2026 Lab model card
5 Kimi K2.6 55.9% Apr 2026 Lab model card
6 Seed2.0 Pro 54.7% Feb 2026 Lab model card
7 Qwen 3.6 Plus 48.2% Apr 2026 Lab model card
8 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 46.1% Feb 2026 Lab model card
9 DeepSeek-V3.2 38% Dec 2025 Lab model card
10 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 37% Apr 2026 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5.2 57.5% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
2 Gemini 3 Pro 53.9% high Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5 52.6% medium Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.5 42.3% high Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
5 DeepSeek-V3.2 36.8% thinking Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Claude Sonnet 4.5 32.1% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
7 Grok 4 31.7% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
8 GPT-5 mini 30.3% high Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
9 Claude Opus 4.1 29.9% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Claude Sonnet 4 28.4% high May 2025 Official leaderboard
11 o3 25.4% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 24.8% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
13 Grok 4 Fast 24% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
14 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 21.9% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
15 DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus 21.3% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
16 grok-code-fast-1 20.5% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
17 Kimi K2 Jul 2025 19.1% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Qwen3-Max 17.7% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
19 o4-mini 17.3% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
20 DeepSeek-V3.1 16.7% non-thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
21 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 15.8% Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
22 GLM-4.5 15.6% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
23 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 9.06% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
24 GPT-4.1 8.07% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
25 GPT-5 nano 6.30% medium Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
26 gpt-oss-120b 4.72% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
27 GPT-4.1 mini 3.94% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
28 GPT-4.1 nano 0% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Kimi K3 94.5% Jul 2026 Lab model card
2 Kimi K2.7 Code 81.1% Jun 2026 Lab model card
3 Qwen3.7-Max 60.8% May 2026 Lab model card
4 Qwen3.7-Plus 58.7% Jun 2026 Lab model card
5 GPT-5.2 57.5% high Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
6 Kimi K2.6 55.9% Apr 2026 Lab model card
7 Seed2.0 Pro 54.7% Feb 2026 Lab model card
8 Gemini 3 Pro 53.9% high Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
9 GPT-5 52.6% medium Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
10 Qwen 3.6 Plus 48.2% Apr 2026 Lab model card
11 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 46.1% Feb 2026 Lab model card
12 Claude Opus 4.5 42.3% high Nov 2025 Official leaderboard
13 DeepSeek-V3.2 38% Dec 2025 Lab model card
14 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 37% Apr 2026 Lab model card
15 Claude Sonnet 4.5 32.1% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
16 Grok 4 31.7% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
17 GPT-5 mini 30.3% high Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
18 Claude Opus 4.1 29.9% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
19 Claude Sonnet 4 28.4% high May 2025 Official leaderboard
20 o3 25.4% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
21 Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 24.8% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
22 Grok 4 Fast 24% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
23 Kimi K2 Sep 2025 21.9% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
24 DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus 21.3% thinking Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
25 grok-code-fast-1 20.5% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
26 Kimi K2 Jul 2025 19.1% Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
27 Qwen3-Max 17.7% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
28 o4-mini 17.3% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
29 DeepSeek-V3.1 16.7% non-thinking Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
30 Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 15.8% Jun 2025 Official leaderboard
31 GLM-4.5 15.6% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
32 Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 9.06% Sep 2025 Official leaderboard
33 GPT-4.1 8.07% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
34 GPT-5 nano 6.30% medium Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
35 gpt-oss-120b 4.72% Aug 2025 Official leaderboard
36 GPT-4.1 mini 3.94% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard
37 GPT-4.1 nano 0% Apr 2025 Official leaderboard

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 28 models. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

The best score, 57.5%, costs $1.97 a task

Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.

OpenAI xAI DeepSeek Cost frontier One model at each effort level
0% 20% 40% 60% $0.001 $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale GPT-5.2, high GPT-5, medium GPT-5, low DeepSeek-V3.2, thinking DeepSeek-V3.2, non-thinking Grok 4 Fast DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus, thinking 0% 20% 40% 60% $0.001 $0.01 $0.10 $1.00 $10 Cost per task, log scale GPT-5.2, high GPT-5, medium

Source: Official MCPMark leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-5.2 high 57.5% $1.97 27,785
Gemini 3 Pro high 53.9% $2.09 8,911
GPT-5 medium 52.6% $1.00 21,907
GPT-5 high 51.6% $1.21 36,741
Gemini 3 Pro low 50.8% $2.02 8,840
GPT-5 low 46.9% $0.99 18,912
Claude Opus 4.5 high 42.3% $3.67 10,533
DeepSeek-V3.2 thinking 36.8% $0.25 8,782
Claude Sonnet 4.5 32.1% $2.22 6,218
Grok 4 31.7% $2.03 8,420
GPT-5 mini high 30.3% $0.32 28,774
Claude Opus 4.1 29.9% $9.18 5,143
DeepSeek-V3.2 non-thinking 29.7% $0.21 5,441
Claude Sonnet 4 high 28.4% $3.48 5,036
Claude Sonnet 4 28.1% $1.99 4,625
Claude Sonnet 4 low 27.4% $3.63 4,943
GPT-5 mini medium 27.4% $0.20 10,307
o3 25.4% $0.90 8,593
Qwen3-Coder-480B-A35B 24.8% $0.29 3,512
Grok 4 Fast 24% $0.14 8,892
Kimi K2 Sep 2025 21.9% $0.57 5,011
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus thinking 21.3% $0.08 14,640
grok-code-fast-1 20.5% $0.13 5,650
Kimi K2 Jul 2025 19.1% $0.29 2,957
Qwen3-Max 17.7% $1.26 2,986
o4-mini 17.3% $0.50 15,571
DeepSeek-V3.1 non-thinking 16.7% $0.28 2,806
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus 16.5% $0.10 2,494
Gemini 2.5 Pro Jun 2025 15.8% $1.28 7,016
GLM-4.5 15.6% $0.14 4,092
Gemini 2.5 Flash Sep 2025 9.06% $0.33 8,799
GPT-5 mini low 8.27% $0.06 3,168
GPT-4.1 8.07% $0.66 1,549
GPT-5 nano medium 6.30% $0.03 23,828
GPT-5 nano high 5.12% $0.06 52,072
gpt-oss-120b 4.72% $0.005 1,373
GPT-5 nano low 4.33% $0.02 12,789
GPT-4.1 mini 3.94% $0.47 1,898
GPT-4.1 nano 0% $0.02 1,636

6 models have held number one in labs’ own numbers since its release in September 2025 3 models have held number one across all independent runs since its release in September 2025 6 models have held number one with claims included since its release in September 2025

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release. We draw one row each for the benchmark’s own leaderboard and what labs claim in their cards.

OpenAI Google DeepMind DeepSeek ByteDance Seed Moonshot AI Qwen
Own leaderboard Not tested since Dec 2025
GPT-5.2 57.5%
Lab claims Passed 85% in Jul 2026, by Kimi K3
Kimi K3 94.5%

Sources: Official MCPMark leaderboard and labs’ model cards

Moonshot AI’s own number for Kimi K3 passed 85% in July 2026

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Kimi K3 Kimi K2.7 Code Qwen3.7-Max GPT-5.2 GPT-5 Grok 4 o3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2025 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Kimi K3 Kimi K2.7 Code

Sources: Official MCPMark leaderboard and labs’ model cards

2 labs put it in a launch post in the last six months

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

DeepSeek
ByteDance Seed
Qwen
Moonshot AI
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
Jul 16, 2026 Kimi K3 94.5 MCPMark-Verified
Jun 12, 2026 Kimi K2.7 Code 81.1 MCP Mark Verified
Jun 1, 2026 Qwen3.7-Plus 58.7 MCP-Mark
May 20, 2026 Qwen3.7-Max 60.8 MCP-Mark
Apr 20, 2026 Kimi K2.6 55.9 MCPMark
Apr 15, 2026 Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B 37 MCPMark
Apr 2, 2026 Qwen 3.6 Plus 48.2 MCPMark
Feb 16, 2026 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 46.1 MCP-Mark
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro 54.7 MCP-Mark
Dec 1, 2025 DeepSeek-V3.2 38 MCP-Mark (Pass@1)

3 system cards report it, from 3 labs

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Jul 27, 2026 Kimi K3 technical report 94.5 MCPMark-Verified (Table 2) Capabilities
Feb 14, 2026 Seed2.0 Pro model card 54.7 MCP-Mark (Table 11) Capabilities
Dec 1, 2025 DeepSeek-V3.2 technical report 38 MCP-Mark (Pass@1), internal environment, DeepSeek-V3.2 Thinking (Table 2) Capabilities

One lab claim next to the leaderboard

Each score a lab reported for its own model, beside the same model's best score on the leaderboard. Gaps mostly come from different harnesses, effort levels and task subsets. Every benchmark.

Model Lab says Board says Gap
DeepSeek-V3.2 38% MCP-Mark (Pass@1) 36.8% Leaderboard, thinking +1.2 pts

Versions

We switch the top row to each new version when it comes out. Open it for one row per version. An old version stays in play while people still test it, so whoever first takes it past 85% gets credit for closing it out.

DeepSeek ByteDance Seed Moonshot AI Qwen OpenAI
MCPMark Verified Passed 85% in Jun 2026, by GPT-5.5
Kimi K3 96.1%
MCPMark Passed 85% in Jul 2026, by Kimi K3
Kimi K3 94.5%
MCPMark Verified Passed 85% in Jun 2026, by GPT-5.5
Kimi K3 96.1%

Sources: Official leaderboards and labs’ model cards

More in Tool use

All 144 in Tool use
  • AutomationBench In use Agent completes end-to-end business workflows inside a simulated company exposing dozens of REST APIs. Graded on resulting state. Gemini 4 Carbon 53.9%
  • MCP Atlas In use Multi-step workflows over real MCP servers. Scores tool-use competency on realistic tasks. Gemini 4 Argon 90.7%
  • BFCL V4 In use Models call functions and tools, including multi-turn agentic tasks with web search and memory. Checked against expected calls and outcomes. Qwen3.7-Max 75%
  • τ³-bench Banking In use Agents act as banking customer-service reps over many turns with a simulated user, following policy. Pass^1 on the final database state. Qwen 3.8 Max 55.1%
  • Toolathlon-Verified In use 108 long-horizon tasks across 32 apps through about 600 MCP tools. Execution-based checkers inspect final environment state. GLM-5.3-Flash 78.4%
  • DeepSearchQA In use Questions that need multi-step search and synthesis. Final answers graded against references. Kimi K3 95%